sphenix-cold-qcd-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX cold QCD topical group
List archive
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET
- From: mxliu <ming AT bnl.gov>
- To: Nils Feege <nils.feege AT stonybrook.edu>
- Cc: Maria Chamizo <mchamizo AT bnl.gov>, "sphenix-cold-qcd-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <sphenix-cold-qcd-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:33:55 -0600
Hi Nils, Thanks for the detailed explanation. So if I understand it correctly, the desired pseudo-rapidity coverage is -4 < eta < 4. For the forward tracking, MAPS-based detectors could provide alternative excellent tracking near the IR (~ in place of FGEM0, FGEM1).
I see some optimizations of detector choices and design/layout are necessary and also possible for EIC-sPHENIX program.
Cheers, Ming
-- Ming Xiong Liu P-25, MS H846 TEL:505-667-7125 Physics Division 631-344-7821(BNL) LANL 630-840-5708(FNAL) Los Alamos, NM 87545 FAX: 505-665-7020
From: Nils Feege <nils.feege AT stonybrook.edu>
Attached is a screenshot of the sPHENIX + EIC detectors envelope drawings I discussed with the sPHENIX integration group last week. The boxes represent the areas reserved for detectors and their readout and some support, i.e. the actual sensitive areas are smaller and some additional required support structure is not included. The bright green boxes correspond to our latest 'EIC-sPHENIX' detector additions, while the other boxes are the sPHENIX envelopes.
Conflicts are wherever envelopes overlap, in particular:
- in the hadron-going direction ('right' in the drawing): What is not shown is e.g. the support structure for the TPC which, in the current design, extends from the TPC outer radius to the right all the way to the end of the inner HCAL, i.e. it goes right through the current gas RICH envelope. There might be ways to adjust the TPC support structure or have it limit the RICH acceptance only in some parts, not at all azimuthal angles. Also, the RICH envelope currently does not account for any support structure and readouts, so the actual acceptance for particle ID may be smaller.
- in the hadron-going direction ('right' in the drawing): The barrel EMCAL is not instrumented beyond the dashed-dotted white line of eta = 1.1 even though the EMCAl envelope extends further (it covers the readout). This means we have a range of pseudorapidities between approximately 1.1 and 1.45 without EMCal coverage. We might be able to recover this range by extending the barrel EMCal if we find it is necessary.
- in the hadron-going direction ('right' in the drawing): The sPHENIX engineering drawing still assumes a 30cm flux return 'door', while our forward-sPHENIX and EIC-sPHENIX studies have assumed only a 15 cm flux return. We need to agree on some number and move the forward-HCAL or decide we get rid of that flux return door and go back to using a magnetic hadron calorimeter (or get rid of the forward hadron calorimeter?).
- forward / backward tracking: The current locations of the GEM stations inside the TPC overlap with the MVTX and its support structure. It's not clear if we can fit any GEM discs inside the TPC inner radius with the MVTX present with its current design of support structure (which extends all the way to the end of the TPC as far as I understand).
- TPC envelope: The latest request for TPC envelope is even bigger than the one shown in the drawing, so we have even less space on either side. That includes readout cards and cables, so one solution may be to expect we'll be able to replace the TPC readout electronics in the EIC area with something that takes up significantly less space.
- electron-going direction ('left' in the drawing): It looks like we need to move the electromagnetic calorimeter in this direction further out to leave space for an mRICH or other particle ID detectors if we decide we need them. If we do, we'll get a gap in EMCal coverage around pseudorapidity of eta ~ -1.1 which will most likely be a problem. Maybe we can extend the barrel EMCal to recover this range.
If anyone has thoughts on this and wants to work on optimizing our detector design, please let us know! We could definitely use some help.
Best, Nils
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Ming Liu <ming AT bnl.gov> wrote:
-- Dr. Nils Feege Research Assistant Professor
SUNY at Stony Brook Department of Physics & Astronomy Stony Brook, NY 11794-3800
e-mail nils.feege AT stonybrook.edu skype nils1920 phone +1-631-632-8710
|
-
[Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET,
Nils Feege, 04/13/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET,
Aidala, Christine, 04/16/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET,
Ming Liu, 04/17/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET,
Nils Feege, 04/18/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET, mxliu, 04/18/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET, John Lajoie, 04/18/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET,
Nils Feege, 04/18/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET,
Ming Liu, 04/17/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Next sPHENIX Cold QCD TG meeting on Monday, April 16th, evening at 8:30pm ET,
Aidala, Christine, 04/16/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.